backANPD’s Oversight on Facial Recognition in Sport Stadiums
The recent decision by the National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) to initiate oversight processes regarding the use of facial recognition by 23 football clubs raises concerns. Biometric identification is crucial in maintaining security in stadiums and ensuring the pacification of sports, a long-standing societal issue. Despite being widely debated, this topic has been called into question merely due to an abstract and potential risk to the privacy of the individuals involved. In this article, we address some key aspects of this issue.
Legality and Proportionality
The General Data Protection Law (LGPD) does not prohibit the processing of biometric data, and the need for public and private security fully justifies the adoption of this system in stadiums and other public environments. The biometric registration of fans serves an unquestionable collective interest and finds legal support in the General Sports Law (LGE). The mere fact that a processing operation involves sensitive personal data does not automatically render it illegitimate or abusive. The real issue lies in whether adequate safeguards and proportionality are in place during its implementation, and this is where efforts should be directed.
Transparency and Data Subject Rights
ANPD’s requirement for clubs to publish detailed information about biometric identification processes and submit Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA) may contribute to strengthening compliance. However, care must be taken to ensure that this does not become an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle or an investigation involving an extensive list of entities, inquiries, and requested information, only to result in what could already be a comprehensive guide on using facial biometric systems in public events.
The Use of Biometric Data for Children and Adolescents
Concerns regarding the processing of minors’ data are always valid, as they are a vulnerable group. However, excessive oversight may hinder a technologically advanced solution that enhances stadium security. In this particular case, there is no apparent reason to impose a different risk assessment based on age discrimination, whether from a transparency perspective or in the definition of legal bases.
Balancing Security and Data Protection
ANPD’s stance in overseeing facial recognition in stadiums seems to cast doubt on a system designed to address a chronic problem of violence and disorder at sporting events. The focus should be on ensuring that the implementation of this technology includes the necessary safeguards without compromising its functionality.
Football clubs and ticketing platforms must be transparent and ensure their practices comply with the LGPD. However, there is no reason to treat facial recognition as an inherently abusive technology. The real debate should revolve around how it is implemented and the guarantees for data protection rather than the mere existence of the system itself.
share
